FRUITARIAN DIET WILL TRANSFORM YOUR RUNNING!!! According to an excellent runner. Must read.

This is CRAZY!!

Everyone knows the fastest runners in the world run on bacon fat and kfc to stay light and lean.

If you do a fruitarian or high carb diet you will need EPO, T and caffeine to perform. Only fruitarians dope up at the olympics.

If you drink enough lard, you will get so fast and lean. Never injured either cos the healthy fats lube up your joints.

My 400lb neighbour told me so. He knows a lot.

lulz wrote:

Vegetarianism is stupid as it is, but what you are talking about is many steps beyond that.

look, pumpkin_poster is insane, we will agree on that. Furthermore, he is incredibly annoying, insanely verbose, and knows little about the topics he talks endlessly about.

So I won't ever bother trying to comment on his many incorrect posts.

But you are wrong about many things you've posted also. Let's start with the above:

Why is vegetarianism stupid?? I am not one, but most serious vegetarians are healthier than most meat eaters. Is it stupid to want to be healthy?? Of course not (and before you challenge me on my above assertions, be aware that unlike pumpkin poster, I know of what I speak, and will provide you with ample evidence if necessary). One can certainly be healthy also eating meat in moderation, especially low sat fat meats like chicken breast, but high intakes of sat fat and cholesterol (which often occur with higher meat intakes) are absolutely linked to negative health repercussions. PLease don't drink the paleo/atkins/taubes kool-aid and suggest otherwise, because I have 1001 article to refute their contentions.

So without citing the paleo theory (we ate meat in the past, therefore, eating meat NOW is the only way to go!), show me why vegetarianism is stupid.

durianrider wrote:

If you do a fruitarian or high carb diet you will need EPO, T and caffeine to perform. Only fruitarians dope up at the olympics.

If you drink enough lard, you will get so fast and lean. Never injured either cos the healthy fats lube up your joints.

Now we know the truth about you.

I figured as much when you were going on about "needing" B12 shots.

Since you were actually someone intelligent, I'll discuss this.

Vegetarianism, like any diet that needlessly eliminates healthy dietary options, is stupid because it is not rooted in any logic or science and, at best, is some misguided moral sticking point.

Vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters because on average they are more active, weigh less, eat less calories, eat more vegetables, etc. None of that has to do with eliminating meat. It just so happens that people who are vegetarian tend to do those things.

Further, dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are meaningless to mention for similar reasons. Again, people with very high intakes tend to have poor lifestyle habits and overall poor diets. Eating eggs and red meat can absolutely be a part of a healthy diet and they offer things not available to vegetarians, such as heme iron, b12, substantial amounts of creatine, and more.

By being a vegetarian, you eliminate most sources of bioavailable iron, b12, protein, almost all sources of EPA/DHA, and more. It is quite silly. And the only literature that really supports it are flawed studies that compare people that eat low vegetable diets. You could easily incorporate high vegetable intake with lots of meats, as many people do. Frankly, a better comparison would be people who identify as vegetarian and people who identify as paleo. Note, I'm not a paleo fan, but those people tend to eat large amounts of vegetables AND meat AND they tend to exercise. I doubt you will find any benefits in vegetarianism compared to this group.

Paleo tards are paleo tards, I am not a Taubes faith believer, or any other nonsense. All of that is as stupid as vegetarianism.

lulz wrote:

Rice and beans doesn't, actually. The protein quality for rice & beans alone is horrible, which is why I wanted you to discuss EAA and BCAA administration or supplementation if you are going to focus on this diet with only 10% of protein. If you are getting your protein primarily from rice and beans, in addition to not getting enough protein, what you are getting is very low quality.

good job, jackasz

1) you are 100% correct the the Fruititarian diet nonsense would not include ample amounts of a grain and a legume (rice and beans), so citing them as a way to get ample protein in such a diet is BS. Yes, correct of course, and pumpkin fool is wrong as usual.

2) you are 100% wrong that rice and beans, or corn and beans would not provide enough high quality protein if eaten in large amounts, which is often the case in certain active populations. Complimentary proteins are just that: they compliment the other protein source by making up for the AA's that are deficient in the other protein. Grains and Legumes do just this. Here is a reference from an article on the Tarahumara, and no, it's not from Born to Run, but a scholarly article:

Am J Clin Nutr-1978-Connor-1131-42: The plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and diet of the Tarahumara indians of Mexico

"The chief sources of protein in the Tarahumara diet were from corn and beans (96%). Corn is low in tryptophan and lysine which are supplied adequately by beans. The somewhat low methionine in beans is complemented by its content in corn. Thus, the amounts of EAA's supplied by the Tarahumara diet at at a total protein intake of 79 to 96 g's/day met the EAA requirements by many times (from 236 to 1221%) (29)"

So you can easily do it. As we all know, the Tarahumara are renowned for their great long distance runners. And as already pointed out, the Kenyans also get by a low % of protein in their diets (overall amount in g's is fairly high though). Many of the healthiest populations on the planet eat a low protein diet (okinawans). So of course one can be very healthy, and very active, and a great long distance runner on a fairly low protein diet.

Now sure, of course if you want to build more muscle, than eat more protein than the populations I am citing above. But we are talking running and general health. And you are wrong to suggest that one cannot get ample protein vegetarian sources only.

First, let's get away from the idea these guys were good by any means, let alone great. Let's also forget this idea that what is topical for severely underweight men--elite distance runners--is appropriate for people wanting to be a healthy weight.

Additionally, those diets are compromised almost ENTIRELY of beans, corn, and other grains. I never said you couldn't reach adequate protein intake if you ate very large amounts of these, I simply said it is inefficient because the protein quality is extremely low (requiring large amounts).

Referencing the Japanese is just silly. Being extremely small will increase your longevity without respect to considering diet. I fail to see how that is relevant for anybody.

You are going back and forth so many d@mn times, I really don't see what your point is. Eating meat, if it is available, is the smart thing to do as you can easily hit your protein/EAA/BCAA requirements and get the benefits of having quality sources of iron, b12, and more in your diet.

You have not provided any argument whatsoever for it being intelligent to eliminate meat from your diet.

Many might have a moral issue with eating meat, but this is not the only reason for it. Vegetarianism can certainly be rooted in science, sorry, you are wrong. Lower levels of sat fat and cholesterol are absolutely linked to better CV health. Eliminating meat immediately sets one a path towards greatly reducing those 2 "nutrients". And it also leads one to eat more plant foods, which again, are absolutely linked to better health outcomes (as you acknowledge). Can there be unhealthy vegetarian diets? Of course. Can there be healthy diets that include meat? of course. Being a vegetarian might have some challenges, but eating meat and being healthy presents challenges too.

That's a fair point, but often there have been studies that have controlled for many of those factors, and they still find better health outcomes for vegetarians. And furthermore, WHY do vegetarians often eat less calories, eat more vegetables, and weigh less?? Because eliminating a great deal of meat and sat fat from one's diet will lead one often in the direction of those habits/outcomes. It's like saying: vegetarians often have lower ldl, but... it has nothing to do with eating no meat. Yes it does.

They are certainly not "meaningless." "people with very high intakes (of sat fat and cholesterol) tend to have poor lifestyle habits and overall poor diets"....like what, eating lots of red meat?? I understand the point you are trying to make, but controlled studies show sat fat raising total and ldl cholesterol, and this does not include other negative lifestyle habits. Yes, if you are extremely active, and your intake of sat fat isn't very high, and the rest of your diet is excellent, sure, of course meat can be part of a healthy diet. But I think what you are missing is: for some people, its a slippery slope. Eating meat "sometimes" ends up being a lot more than they realize. By going vegetarian, they avoid this pitfall.

Firstly, so called vegetarians will often eat fish and drink milk. So your contentions are untrue concerning them. As far as vegans go, yes, b12 is an issue, but this can easily be solved with a vitamin pill, and there is nothing wrong with that. And in reality, vegans can easily get enough iron (yes, non-heme sources, but enough is enough, and it is bio-available), protein, and omega 3's from non-meat sources. vegans seem to have a higher rate of conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA than the average person. So a high intake of walnut, flax, chia, etc will provide enough of these essential fats, along with many benefits one does not necessarily get from fish.

This is a fair enough point, and I don't know for certain if such EXACT studies have been done. But I disagree with you that there is no evidence comparing vegetarians and non-vegetarians where lack of meat/sat fat was the main difference, and vegetable intakes were similar. I will see what I can dig up. Don't forget, vegetarians often replace their meat not only with vegetables such as spinach,etc (what you seem to be referring to), but also legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains, etc. THESE factors (vegetable sources of protein, fiber, specific phytochemicals found in these foods, ALA, etc) might be one of their main advantages (along with lack of sat fat /cholesterol), where you seem to think they are only benefitting by eating more spinach and broccoli. This is not necessarily true.

Well, I am glad you feel that way on the first part, and we agree on it. And I am not vegetarian, and think that many people that are are lacking in nutrition knowledge, and attribute all sorts of mystical qualities to the diet that are not true, but when done right, I believe it can be as healthy as any diet one can come up with. And I do believe this is supported by the literature. ON the other hand, diets containing fish and *small amounts* of meat can be extremely healthy too. But that does make vegetarian diets stupid, when many of the healthy Med. diets only include small amounts of meat.

wow, either you are have split personality, or you are waving the white flag very quickly. You seemed sincere and reasonable in your first reply to me, but the below ones are weak, snarky, and signs of giving up in a debate. You are just waving your hand saying: "eat meat, vegetarianism $ucks, I have my hand over my eyes and ears, I can't hear you!" Weak. For example:

1) actually, they were quite good in some ultras. No one said they were olympic champions, but don't downplay the fact that they are EXTREMELY active, run a lot, and have produced some excellent ultra runners. (oh wait, they even beat Scott Jurek when he was in his best shape? But he's another "pu$$y" vegan, right? is that your argument? ). So their protein intake was ample for an extremely active and healthy lifestyle. THAT was the point you are trying to paper over.

2) this is a running site. If you want to promote a diet for power lifters, go for it. We were discussing (if you can remember that far back, what yesterday?) whether a rice and beans diet could give one enough protein and EAA's for distance running. It appears that it can. You were wrong, get over it.

3) people who want to reach a "healthy weight" will often achieve this by cutting sat fat and meat, eating more vegetable sources of protein (lentils, beans, soy, whole grains, nuts). I know, they don't always look RIPPED AND BUFF like they just came from juicing at X-fit, but, their healthy and look good. So it's relevant. Sorry chief.

Why does it have to be "efficient" ? Beans and whole grains provide many, many other nutrients, along with combining to give adequate protein. Know what is a more efficient way to get adequate protein than eating meat ? Whey shake. Know what is a more efficient way to get all your vitamins and minerals than...... eating? Vitamin pill. A healthy diet is not all about efficiency. And you said what one could not get enough EAA's from the "low quality" Rice and beans. Together they are not "low quality" protein. They just have to compliment each other, and they also contains lots of complex carbs (which is what a runner wants). Sounds efficient to me (but I drink milk also, and eat some meat. Yeah, it's easier and I like them. Still doesn't make vegetarians stupid)

You are the only one be "silly." Do really short people live longer than average height people? I was referencing a very healthy population that eats a low amount protein, and very little meat, something you said was "stupid." Their longevity and diet is as relevant as any other populations's diet, and CERTAINLY as relevant as your off the cuff nutrition "thoughts". Most long lived populations eat no or only small amounts of meat (i.e., low sat fat/cholesterol). It's relevant to what a healthy diet is, and whether or not "low" protein diets are unhealthy or not.

"back and forth" ??? What? I have been consistent and clear as possible. If you've suddenly lost interest, that's your problem.

One last time: one can easily get enough protein, iron, and every other essential nutrient on a vegetarian diet, and a vegan diet only lacks b12 (take a vitamin, but deal). But by adopting such diets, one also ups their fiber and phytochemicals/antioxidant intake and drops their sat fat and cholesterol intake ( and usually replaces with much healthier unsat fats), and often (due to satiety from bulk/fiber), one eats less calories. And yes, those are "INTELLIGENT" reasons to drop meat if you want to.

Great, one can eat small to moderate amounts of low sat fat meats and be healthy too. Great, fantastic, congratulations. But, contrary to your un-referenced and unproven assertions, such a diet is not healthier than not eating meat (see bold faced reasons above).

Have you read those 'studies'? They are epidemiological population studies with no controls and tons of factors, including socioeconomic, conflating the topic. It has no relevance to incorporating meat as part of a complete diet and lifestyle the incorporate exercise.

Dude, read the studies. There is no study where they control for vegetable intake, BMI, and activity level. Not to even get into socioeconomic status. You can easily eat lots of vegetables with meat. Most people don't, but that is fairly meaningless.

Are you intentionally acting ignorant or do you really not understand why these studies are not scientific?

If you eat fish, I am perplexed at how you can call yourself vegetarian. And no,, non-heme iron has extremely poor bioavailability and vegetarians have, in numerous studies, had horrible issues with iron, even with supplementing with exogenous sources.

Vegetarian diets are historically deficient in a number of substances. It is inefficient cost wise and requires supplementation to hit zinc/iron/b12/EPA/DHA levels. It is silly to exclude healthy and cheap food options.

They don't hold any records in any relevant events and have no titles in relevant events. Outside of extremely long duration activities, they have done nothing. They are substantially smaller in stature than an athletic man in any other activity. If you are going to bring up their 'results' as evidence, the results have to be good. They simply aren't better than numerous other diets and backgrounds and they perform terribly in events that people care about.

Yeah, sprinting is running as well. In fact, distance runners don't have a monopoly on running nor on health and fitness. The topic was not whether it could meet the minimum EAA requirements for distance running in a 120-130lb male/90-100lb female. It was about the general veracity of the diet. Get a clue.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. People cut out carbs, too, and get great results sometimes. That doesn't mean carbs are bad. Your point is meaningless.

You aren't even vegetarian. What the fvck is your point other than arguing? You can mix meat in with your rice and beans and have more calories available for fruits and other foods to provide more micronutrients, which are sorely lacking in rice&beans. Dietary variety is a great thing and if you HAVE to rely on rice and beans for protein, that's unlikely to happen because of how many calories you need from those sources.

I could say the same for most populations with very poor longevity as well. I don't see how it has relevance unless you control for numerous other factors.

Why are you so obsessed with saturated fat? There is nothing wrong with saturated fat on its own. You realize that dietary cholesterol and your cholesterol levels have a very weak relationship, at best, right?

lulz wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with saturated fat? There is nothing wrong with saturated fat on its own. You realize that dietary cholesterol and your cholesterol levels have a very weak relationship, at best, right?

look, I will argue with you more another time (don't have the time at the moment), but I am not "obsessed" with sat fat. However, there is undeniable linkage between higher intakes of dietary sat fat and cholesterol and higher levels of total and ldl cholesterol, which are strongly correlated, and proven to be causative of CVD. You know, other than THAT.....I guess there are no good reasons for being concerned with one's intake of sat fat and cholesterol. Good point (not really). And yeah, bringing that up in the context of the pros and cons of vegetarianism/veganism is, let me guess, just weird, right? Wrong. It's an obvious point for someone defending vegetarianism to make, yet somehow you couldn't comprehend that. bravo, good show.

As far as dietary cholesterol and one's blood cholesterol goes, sat fat intake is a bigger determining factor, however, adding cholesterol on top of sat fat is a double whammy. So yes, intake of cholesterol does have some influence on blood cholesterol levels, but I was focusing more ("obsessing" ? sure, whatever you say) on sat fat.

Look, obviously you have no real education on this topic (like everyone I argue with on this site about nutrition, unlike me), but it's nice that you think you know better. Trust me, I'm used to it by now. Internet armchair experts, they're a dime a dozen.

(Amazing how confident some people are about a particular topic when they have so very little reason to be that way)

You need to read up on medical studies and the problems with using association as a synonym for cause. It is silly. People with high sat fat intakes also tend to eat less vegetables. What is your point?

I'm also not advocating for high sat fat in your diet. I simply don't think it is a problem with normal meat consumption as part of a balanced diet.

You are truly fvcking retarded.

Firstly, why are you so obsessed with vegetables??? There are other healthy foods one can eat. Vegetarians often substitute legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and fruit for meat, so it isn't necessarily vegetables that they are getting more of, and that is reducing their CVD risk compared to meat eaters (beyond their reduction in sat fat and cholesterol, which I address below)

*I* need to read up on medical studies? Yes, because this is something I never do (well, if you don't count the 100's and 100's I have stored in in my e-library, all of which I have read several times). Yes, and I am well aware that correlation and causation are not = (who isn't aware of this?).

However........when you have many, many epi studies looking at cultures all around the globe (some controlling ver well for the potential confounders you are concerned with), that are corroborated by clinical trials (in which the ONLY difference between the diets given to the subjects is switching one fat for another, so your confounding factor concern does not exist), which are corroborated by animal studies, and human cell studies.....guess what? Then you have a pretty good idea of the answer to the question you are looking at, which in this case is: what happens when you decrease the amount of sat fat and cholesterol in your diet? And the overwhelming evidence from alllllll those types of studies is: your lower your total and ldl cholesterol, often increase your arterial blood flow, decrease your insulin resistance and chance for type 2 diabetes, and therefore, because of these factors, reduce your chances for CVD. PERIOD.

REALLY??? Wow. For the last time, here is:

Vegetarianism is not stupid as you claim. It is diet that is a little more challenging than some, but because of the decreased sat fat and cholesterol, increased unsat fat, increased fiber, and often increased antioxidants/phytochemicals from plant foods (often not from vegetables), it can be a very healthy diet, maybe the healthiest of all. And you can certainly get enough high quality protein, iron, zinc, and omega 3's from such a diet. If you drink milk, no B12 concerns. If you don't, wow, take a small supplement, big deal. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it "stupid".

Great, we agree on the no high sat fat diet, fantastic. I've also repeatedly said: yes, small to moderate meat consumption (especially lower sat fat meat like chicken breast, and very lean beef) can be part of very healthy diet if one is doing everything else in their diet and lifestyle correctly. If a hard-core vegan states on these boards: 'anyone who eats meat is "stupid", and there is no way one can have a healthy diet with meat part of it', I correct them just as I am correcting you here. I've done it before.

And no, that is not for the sake of playing devil's advocate, it is just for sake of stating facts.

Great comeback. Look, just because I know more about this than you, doesn't mean you have to have a tantrum. You do seem to know a fair amount about nutrition, that's great, and I really appreciate the fact that you are not paleo/taubes/atkins denier of reality. I was simply defending vegetarianism/veganism as a dietary choice because I feel quite confident that when done right, it is an extremely healthy diet, and certainly not "stupid." Some undertake it without the correct knowledge, but these days such info can be found in an instant, and that makes it easier for people to do it right.

WTF, people? Whatever happened to moderation in all things? You dietary extremists are a pain in the a$$.

Vegetables tend to be what is missing from standard north american diets, which is why I mention it.

For somebody that says this, you don't show it very well by continually spouting off pointless studies that simply look at people that eat meat (without controlling for dietary or lifestyle factors) with people who identify as vegetarian (without even controlling for diet).

Not really dude. You would get obliterated in any serious debate on this topic. Epidemiological data is practically worthless in identifying causes. Since the data doesn't even control actual diet (which varies greatly within 'meat eaters' and 'vegetarians'), let alone life style and other points, it is not appropriate to claim that meat eating is the cause of any of these things. It is completely silly. Many European countries have very long life expectancies and have plenty of meat and animal products in their diets.

There is no reason why you cannot reduce EXCESS sat fat/cholesterol and increase fiber without eliminating meat. Eliminating meat has nothing to do with those things, but it does make it impossible to hit certain micronutrient requirements. You still have not shown the diet that hits the targeted amounts for heme iron and EPA/DHA without using meat or animal products. You are now admitting the diet requires supplementation, which alone tells you it is not healthy and ideal as a diet. Ideally, you shouldn't need any supplementation.

Why do you keep saying small to moderate? You still have given no evidence for why saturated fat is a bad thing in any normal amount. Excess of anything, even anti-oxidants and vitamins/minerals, is bad. No reason to focus on saturated f